Welcome to the Dark Side...
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
Here's 2 where it has changed. Global warming and wine being good for you. And, here's a third, eggs being good for you.
And how exactly did the science change, in those instances? But let's not go into how little (i.e. absolutely bugger all) phrases like "good for you" have to do with science; just tell me how science changed, concerning global warming -- preferably citing textbooks, to show which laws of Physics changed.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
science change, in those instances?
Science said that they were good for you. Then they said they were bad for you. That is what we humans call change.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
laws of Physics changed.
None. But science did not understand the laws and so science had to change. If you have a genuine desire to see examples of how it has changed, read the link I provided.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Mark_Wallace wrote:
science change, in those instances?
Science said that they were good for you. Then they said they were bad for you. That is what we humans call change.
Mark_Wallace wrote:
laws of Physics changed.
None. But science did not understand the laws and so science had to change. If you have a genuine desire to see examples of how it has changed, read the link I provided.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
ZurdoDev wrote:
Science People said that they were good for you.
Science doesn't GAF whether or not things are "good for" petty little life forms on a pebble on one of the billions of galaxies in the universe.
ZurdoDev wrote:
science People did not understand the laws and so science People's knowledge had to change.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
Science always changes.
That's quite a common misapprehension. The science does indeed never change. How much we know of it, however...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
ok, if by "science" you mean "the laws of the universe, physics, chemistry, etc" then yeah, I agree. But most people understand science as "our current understanding of the universe, etc". Indeed science means "the study of knowledge, or what is knowable" hence, by definition, our grasp of such is always changing.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
ok, if by "science" you mean "the laws of the universe, physics, chemistry, etc" then yeah, I agree. But most people understand science as "our current understanding of the universe, etc". Indeed science means "the study of knowledge, or what is knowable" hence, by definition, our grasp of such is always changing.
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
our grasp of such is always changing
Your phrasing there confirms that the science doesn't change; only our grasp of it. Science is the mechanics behind the universe (including the functionality behind the tiny, inconsequential lumps of matter that move around and form opinions on how everything works). Our not knowing or comprehending all of science cannot change the way things work. It's like not knowing CSS doesn't make it not exist. Unfortunately.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
Science People said that they were good for you.
Science doesn't GAF whether or not things are "good for" petty little life forms on a pebble on one of the billions of galaxies in the universe.
ZurdoDev wrote:
science People did not understand the laws and so science People's knowledge had to change.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
our grasp of such is always changing
Your phrasing there confirms that the science doesn't change; only our grasp of it. Science is the mechanics behind the universe (including the functionality behind the tiny, inconsequential lumps of matter that move around and form opinions on how everything works). Our not knowing or comprehending all of science cannot change the way things work. It's like not knowing CSS doesn't make it not exist. Unfortunately.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Science is the organized body of knowledge to explain things, it does not exist without people to make theories, etc. Likely you mean the fundamental laws of physics don't change.
MKJCP wrote:
Likely you mean the fundamental laws of physics don't change.
Ya, I think that's what he means. Although there's no way to prove that the laws don't change. ;)
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Science is the organized body of knowledge to explain things, it does not exist without people to make theories, etc. Likely you mean the fundamental laws of physics don't change.
Elsewhere, MKJCP wrote:
Look up the definition of science.
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. I don't see your point. "Systematic study ... through observation and experiment" does not mean "Have a quick shufty, form an opinion, and call it science" (despite its seeming to be the most common method of investigation, if all the click-bait is anything to go by). Scientific rigour demands that, without definitive proof (achieved through systematic yadda yadda), even correct opinions and theories remain as only opinions and theories. Don't confuse cack-handed opinions, statistics, and marketing guff about "what is good for you" with science.
MKJCP wrote:
Science is the organized body of knowledge to explain things, it does not exist without people to make theories, etc
That statement itself shows that theories are not science, but are only a step on the way toward it. Only after proof do theories become part of the "organised body of knowledge", because only after proof can they be termed "knowledge", rather than "opinion" or "theory". And proving that some complex foodstuff is "good for you" is pretty much beyond our current capabilities, given the umpty-gazillion chemical interactions that go on daily within the human body, so statements to the effect are not science.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Elsewhere, MKJCP wrote:
Look up the definition of science.
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. I don't see your point. "Systematic study ... through observation and experiment" does not mean "Have a quick shufty, form an opinion, and call it science" (despite its seeming to be the most common method of investigation, if all the click-bait is anything to go by). Scientific rigour demands that, without definitive proof (achieved through systematic yadda yadda), even correct opinions and theories remain as only opinions and theories. Don't confuse cack-handed opinions, statistics, and marketing guff about "what is good for you" with science.
MKJCP wrote:
Science is the organized body of knowledge to explain things, it does not exist without people to make theories, etc
That statement itself shows that theories are not science, but are only a step on the way toward it. Only after proof do theories become part of the "organised body of knowledge", because only after proof can they be termed "knowledge", rather than "opinion" or "theory". And proving that some complex foodstuff is "good for you" is pretty much beyond our current capabilities, given the umpty-gazillion chemical interactions that go on daily within the human body, so statements to the effect are not science.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
My point is that I felt you were confusing the human study which is science with the laws themselves (I mean here the actual dynamics governing physical universe) when you said
Quote:
Science Does Not Change
. But then, later in your response above you seem to agree that "science" is the study, so maybe I am mistaken. I have little doubt you understand all this.
Quote:
complex foodstuff
Sounds like you need breakfast.
-
What, do you think gravity was different before Newton wrote about it? Or that the Sun did indeed revolve around the Earth, because people believed it to be so? So yes, Science Does Not Change. That I've had to qualify that statement twice, in a forum that is populated by supposedly intelligent people, is somewhat annoying.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
What, do you think gravity was different before Newton wrote about it? Or that the Sun did indeed revolve around the Earth, because people believed it to be so?
I believe you are wrong. "Science", our study and understanding of the Physical World, Universe, the rules that govern its' behavior, etc., changes constantly. It is the Physical World, Universe, etc., that does not change, much... :rolleyes: . To quote Cool Hand Luke "What we have heah is a failure to communicate.". :cool:
-
What, do you think gravity was different before Newton wrote about it? Or that the Sun did indeed revolve around the Earth, because people believed it to be so? So yes, Science Does Not Change. That I've had to qualify that statement twice, in a forum that is populated by supposedly intelligent people, is somewhat annoying.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
My point is that I felt you were confusing the human study which is science with the laws themselves (I mean here the actual dynamics governing physical universe) when you said
Quote:
Science Does Not Change
. But then, later in your response above you seem to agree that "science" is the study, so maybe I am mistaken. I have little doubt you understand all this.
Quote:
complex foodstuff
Sounds like you need breakfast.
MKJCP wrote:
you seem to agree that "science" is the study
It is the study, but when you study, you only retain knowledge, not every unproven theory, crackpot idea, or statistical survey that everyone and his uncle Willy vomits out along the way. I confess to being a little tired of headlines (especially on the web) that declare "Science Proves [insert any old guff here]!" Science doesn't "prove" anything, and doesn't "confirm" anything. It's the application of proven scientific principles, facts, and knowledge that do that. A good example of where it all goes wrong is the global warming "discussion". Genuine scientists will never win that discussion, because GW itself isn't science -- but people rightly use science, apply science, when attempting to prove things that are not themselves science. GW is just a series of effects of scientific laws (e.g. the proven laws regarding energy gradients, fluid dynamics, and changes of states of matter). But again, the systems involved are far too complex to properly apply scientific principles, and too many of the calculations come down to statistics. So no true scientist could put his hand on his heart and declare that his GW predictions are indisputably true, but anyone who just has personal preferences on the matter will quite happily declare that his opinion is absolute truth -- and will roll out as many bullfacts as he can think of as "proof" of his completely unscientific ideas. QED Pheobe, in Friends, who demonstrated this succinctly and perfectly. For every fact of science, there are a million unsubstantiated opinions, so the line has to be drawn between facts/knowledge and opinions/theory, or you'll just drown under the deluge of opinions and unproven theories. Facts are science; theories are, at best, the application of science. There was never any definitive proof that the Earth is flat, so that ain't science. Gravity worked before someone figured out how to calculate its effects, so it was always a fact, even though we still don't know exactly how it works.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Chang'e probe: First pictures from moon’s ‘dark side’[^] This should have been given more attention by news organisations -- science is far more important than politics, because it never changes, and it really does rule our lives.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Perhaps you're confusing the terms nature and science. Nature, specifically how the natural universe works, never changes, but science, how we perceive and model it, changes constantly including how we use models that might be in disagreement to each other but work within their respective contexts. Even so, what makes something that doesn't change more important than something that does change? (Psst, you don't have to answer that; it was just rhetorical.)
-
MKJCP wrote:
you seem to agree that "science" is the study
It is the study, but when you study, you only retain knowledge, not every unproven theory, crackpot idea, or statistical survey that everyone and his uncle Willy vomits out along the way. I confess to being a little tired of headlines (especially on the web) that declare "Science Proves [insert any old guff here]!" Science doesn't "prove" anything, and doesn't "confirm" anything. It's the application of proven scientific principles, facts, and knowledge that do that. A good example of where it all goes wrong is the global warming "discussion". Genuine scientists will never win that discussion, because GW itself isn't science -- but people rightly use science, apply science, when attempting to prove things that are not themselves science. GW is just a series of effects of scientific laws (e.g. the proven laws regarding energy gradients, fluid dynamics, and changes of states of matter). But again, the systems involved are far too complex to properly apply scientific principles, and too many of the calculations come down to statistics. So no true scientist could put his hand on his heart and declare that his GW predictions are indisputably true, but anyone who just has personal preferences on the matter will quite happily declare that his opinion is absolute truth -- and will roll out as many bullfacts as he can think of as "proof" of his completely unscientific ideas. QED Pheobe, in Friends, who demonstrated this succinctly and perfectly. For every fact of science, there are a million unsubstantiated opinions, so the line has to be drawn between facts/knowledge and opinions/theory, or you'll just drown under the deluge of opinions and unproven theories. Facts are science; theories are, at best, the application of science. There was never any definitive proof that the Earth is flat, so that ain't science. Gravity worked before someone figured out how to calculate its effects, so it was always a fact, even though we still don't know exactly how it works.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Chang'e probe: First pictures from moon’s ‘dark side’[^] This should have been given more attention by news organisations -- science is far more important than politics, because it never changes, and it really does rule our lives.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Perhaps you're confusing the terms nature and science. Nature, specifically how the natural universe works, never changes, but science, how we perceive and model it, changes constantly including how we use models that might be in disagreement to each other but work within their respective contexts. Even so, what makes something that doesn't change more important than something that does change? (Psst, you don't have to answer that; it was just rhetorical.)
I think you're correct in your assertion. Take Newtonian mechanics as an example: Newton formulated his laws on planetary motion but it took till Einstein to come along and refine them to give a more accurate picture. Even this might not be fully correct and someone in the future comes along and refines them even more. Therefore, the science changes. The fundamental laws do not. Whether we understand the fundamental laws FULLY is a different matter and what science is all about.
-
Chang'e probe: First pictures from moon’s ‘dark side’[^] This should have been given more attention by news organisations -- science is far more important than politics, because it never changes, and it really does rule our lives.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark_Wallace wrote:
science ... because it never changes
Your definition of science doesn't correspond to either my definition or the ones I found on google. Your statement is probably meant to express something closer to 'natural laws do not change over time'. Google term: define:science 1. "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." The above definition refers to a process carried out by people. As a process that doesn't define the nature of the universe but even that changes over time (for instance how statistics are applied and used have changed over time.) 2. "a particular area of this." Presumably this definition is not applicable to your usage at all since is used to name a discipline and not what the discipline achieves. 3. "a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject." This is closest to your usage but it definitely can and has changed over time.
-
Chang'e probe: First pictures from moon’s ‘dark side’[^] This should have been given more attention by news organisations -- science is far more important than politics, because it never changes, and it really does rule our lives.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
our grasp of such is always changing
Your phrasing there confirms that the science doesn't change; only our grasp of it. Science is the mechanics behind the universe (including the functionality behind the tiny, inconsequential lumps of matter that move around and form opinions on how everything works). Our not knowing or comprehending all of science cannot change the way things work. It's like not knowing CSS doesn't make it not exist. Unfortunately.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
wrong. Science is the study of the mechanics behind the universe. The universe's workings don't change, but our science (i.e., our understanding of the universe) does. Go read the dictionary. Science derives from the latin root word "scien" which means "to know". A scientist is someone who "knows".
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
-
wrong. Science is the study of the mechanics behind the universe. The universe's workings don't change, but our science (i.e., our understanding of the universe) does. Go read the dictionary. Science derives from the latin root word "scien" which means "to know". A scientist is someone who "knows".
#SupportHeForShe Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
Science derives from the latin root word "scien" scientia which means "to know".
Indeed. Not "to theorise" or "to opine"; "to know". If it ain't a fact, or it ain't true, it ain't science.
TheGreatAndPowerfulOz wrote:
A scientist is someone who "knows".
Indeed. Not "someone who theorises", or "someone who has an opinion"; "someone who knows". If it ain't a fact, or it ain't true, it's only an opinion or a theory. Get an education. It beats the crap out of a search engine. And look up "good manners", whilst you're at it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!